Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[monkeybarry]

There's strong correlation between age and voting, education and voting and home ownership and voting. All of which correlate with wealth and/or earnings.

The marginal tax rate at £50k for many is greater than at any other rate than from £100-125k. That's now the turning point from heart to head for many, and someone earning just over £40k 2 years ago with inflationary pay increases would now be in that bracket.

I doubt anyone has cut out the middle man and written a "Do poor people vote as much as rich people" paper as some would consider it insensitive.

Edit:
And in case you missed it, we are in the midst of ridiculous inflation and it's being perpetuated by wage demands.

Again, which country are you in?! Wages have not increased over 20% in the past two years!! That is utterly ludicrous.
But presumably you are right, I'm wrong, and you can back it up with some kind of evidence........

 

[monkeybarry]

There's strong correlation between age and voting, education and voting and home ownership and voting. All of which correlate with wealth and/or earnings.

The marginal tax rate at £50k for many is greater than at any other rate than from £100-125k. That's now the turning point from heart to head for many, and someone earning just over £40k 2 years ago with inflationary pay increases would now be in that bracket.

I doubt anyone has cut out the middle man and written a "Do poor people vote as much as rich people" paper as some would consider it insensitive.

Edit:
And in case you missed it, we are in the midst of ridiculous inflation and it's being perpetuated by wage demands.

In case you missed it/don't understand it/are ignorant to it (delete as appropriate) neo liberalism is, by design, a system that increases profits for companies shareholders at the expense of employees. As shareholdering cannot be finite (well, not without rendering them worthless), workers suffer, living standards drop etc.
This has been happening for 40ish years in the west. Covid was a breaker. It took down the levers of power and manipulation that irresponsible capitalism had put place.
Workers now want pay to at least keep living standards at parity.
Capitalism relies/relied (delete as appropriate) on growth and improvement.
So a system that relies on growth and improvement that then penalises people wanting growth and improvement, is a broken system.
And that is where we are at. Irresponsible capitalists, like yourself, are seeing the output of their greed and controlling behaviour - a workforce that isn't going to put up with being manipulated and downtrodden.
And, unsurprisingly, you lot don't like it.

 

[Grays_1890]

Starmer is certainly not doing that. Quite the opposite, is my point. If those homeless Tories (there's an oxymoron) move to lib dem/green or such it might not be the worst outcome. A coalition with Labour might come with an electoral reform condition, which the UK badly needs at this point IMO.

Ahhh I get ya, yeh and it will hold him in good footing.

Like or loathe Blair was right in his interview, you can't gain the government by not claiming the middle, he was right IMO

 

[Rorschach]

Ahhh I get ya, yeh and it will hold him in good footing.

Like or loathe Blair was right in his interview, you can't gain the government by not claiming the middle, he was right IMO

Nor can you gain government by moving too far from your core principles. Labour needs to get the balance right and at the moment they run the risk of eroding much of the free gains they have made due to the current government's incompetency and dishonesty. Those free gains were the swing voters/disaffected conservatives and there was almost no work needed to be done to get them. Stamer being ambiguous and non-committal was an acceptable approach, but actually stating agreement with some of the more egregious Tory policies is a strategic error and will lose more voters than it will attract. The losses will be Labour core voters. This is a self-inflicted wound IMO.

 

[Rorschach]

Grifter was some kind of conspiracy theorist here a few years ago that we had to get rid of due to his dangerous medical advice he kept giving out.

I'm sure some money has gone where it shouldn't have, that's why governments shouldn't pick winners. I'd be interested to see how that stands as a proportion of tax take though.

Let's say they've managed to hand out £1b in dodgy contracts to their mates for no return whatsoever (which is way over the top). That represents less than 0.1% of the tax take. That's not where the problems lie.

Gifter!!! Was there something related to crystals or was that someone else?

I'm sure there's plenty of money gone where it shouldn't as we know about it. I am surprised that you are such a keen supporter of corruption. How much is the threshold figure before it becomes an issue for you?

 

[Scoopage]

Gifter!!! Was there something related to crystals or was that someone else?

I'm sure there's plenty of money gone where it shouldn't as we know about it. I am surprised that you are such a keen supporter of corruption. How much is the threshold figure before it becomes an issue for you?

Alive and kicking as Zest on the fighting rooster, hasn´t changed a bit

 

[richie_spur]

I think most moderate floating voters' biggest issue with Labour is that they might become the largest party but not actually have enough MPs to form a government. As such, if the Lib Dems don't have that many, they will be off to the SNP sharpish.

Labour could stop that concern by stating they won't form a government with the SNP and would likely get more votes, but would need to get enough to not need another party, or hope the Lib Dems take enough seats to prop them up.

I still reckon the best government in principle is a coalition moderating the extremes of each party.

I'm not sure I really want to vote for any of them...

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think most moderate floating voters' biggest issue with Labour is that they might become the largest party but not actually have enough MPs to form a government. As such, if the Lib Dems don't have that many, they will be off to the SNP sharpish.

Labour could stop that concern by stating they won't form a government with the SNP and would likely get more votes, but would need to get enough to not need another party, or hope the Lib Dems take enough seats to prop them up.

I still reckon the best government in principle is a coalition moderating the extremes of each party.

I'm not sure I really want to vote for any of them...

Why would anyone in England care about the SNP? Unionism in England isn't really a thing, I think most English people are just a bit embarrassed we still have a bit of an empire around our borders. Demographics (lots more young nationalists) mean we'll see an independent Scotland and a united Ireland in the next decade or so. And better friendly neighbours than resentful lodgers.

 

[glasgowspur]

Why would anyone in England care about the SNP? Unionism in England isn't really a thing, I think most English people are just a bit embarrassed we still have a bit of an empire around our borders. Demographics (lots more young nationalists) mean we'll see an independent Scotland and a united Ireland in the next decade or so. And better friendly neighbours than resentful lodgers.

There's more chance of an ex snp first minister serving time in jail than there is of Scottish independence in the next decade.

 

[Mikey10]

There's more chance of an ex snp first minister serving time in jail than there is of Scottish independence in the next decade.

No chance of a United Ireland in that timescale either.

 

[scaramanga]

Again, which country are you in?! Wages have not increased over 20% in the past two years!! That is utterly ludicrous.
But presumably you are right, I'm wrong, and you can back it up with some kind of evidence........

Most people I know who run businesses give payrises that match inflation - I know I do.

With inflation at 10% for over a year now, plenty of people would have had that as an increase - otherwise the job market would be flooded and it isn't.

 

[scaramanga]

In case you missed it/don't understand it/are ignorant to it (delete as appropriate) neo liberalism is, by design, a system that increases profits for companies shareholders at the expense of employees. As shareholdering cannot be finite (well, not without rendering them worthless), workers suffer, living standards drop etc.
This has been happening for 40ish years in the west. Covid was a breaker. It took down the levers of power and manipulation that irresponsible capitalism had put place.
Workers now want pay to at least keep living standards at parity.
Capitalism relies/relied (delete as appropriate) on growth and improvement.
So a system that relies on growth and improvement that then penalises people wanting growth and improvement, is a broken system.
And that is where we are at. Irresponsible capitalists, like yourself, are seeing the output of their greed and controlling behaviour - a workforce that isn't going to put up with being manipulated and downtrodden.
And, unsurprisingly, you lot don't like it.

The system works on market forces, no more and no less. You've failed to take into account the effect of market forces on labour in your premise.

If employers don't offer sufficient pay and conditions then they won't have enough employees to run their business.

The system only works when everyone gets what they're due. You're falling into the trap of confusing what people want with what they deserve or have earned.

 

[scaramanga]

Gifter!!! Was there something related to crystals or was that someone else?

I'm sure there's plenty of money gone where it shouldn't as we know about it. I am surprised that you are such a keen supporter of corruption. How much is the threshold figure before it becomes an issue for you?

That's the one.

No amount is acceptable but it's a natural by product of having governments pick winners - it's why none of them should be allowed to.

But if you're arguing that the reason services appear to be underfunded is money being syphoned off illegally (or at least imorally) to friends, it would have to be on a scale thousands of time greater than it is.

 

[Rorschach]

That's the one.

No amount is acceptable but it's a natural by product of having governments pick winners - it's why none of them should be allowed to.

But if you're arguing that the reason services appear to be underfunded is money being syphoned off illegally (or at least imorally) to friends, it would have to be on a scale thousands of time greater than it is.

No I wasn't arguing that. I was just pointing out your ambivalence to the corruption. That is not picking winners in the silly way you mean. It is just tories handing your money to other tories.

 

[scaramanga]

No I wasn't arguing that. I was just pointing out your ambivalence to the corruption. That is not picking winners in the silly way you mean. It is just tories handing your money to other tories.

Not an ambivalence. Just an acceptance that power currupts and there's nothing any of us can do about it, short of starting our own party. All parties are the same, they all use their power for their own purposes. The only politicians I believe wouldn't are the extremist nutjobs like Corbyn - electing extremists for their honesty seems like a costly solution.

The only way to solve it is to take our money out of their hands and allow people to spend it as they wish.

 

[Rorschach]

Not an ambivalence. Just an acceptance that power currupts and there's nothing any of us can do about it, short of starting our own party. All parties are the same, they all use their power for their own purposes. The only politicians I believe wouldn't are the extremist nutjobs like Corbyn - electing extremists for their honesty seems like a costly solution.

The only way to solve it is to take our money out of their hands and allow people to spend it as they wish.

They are not the same by any measure. That is the usual cop-out answer when your side has been found guilty repeatedly, to try tar everyone with the same brush. To find any equivalence between the recent behavior of the 2 main parties is laughable.

 

[P.D.]

People have short memories, once inflation goes down and things pick up a bit with a few tax cuts put into the mix it won't look as clear cut. Looks like a Labour minority to me.

I voted Labour last week but unless Starmer comes up with some policies I won't vote Labour in the general election. More likely to not vote at all.

 

[scaramanga]

They are not the same by any measure. That is the usual cop-out answer when your side has been found guilty repeatedly, to try tar everyone with the same brush. To find any equivalence between the recent behavior of the 2 main parties is laughable.

You literally only have to go back to the last time Labour were in power for examples.

Cash for honours?

How about Lord Drayson? If you want an apt parallel, he was given govt contracts for vaccines in return for huge donations to the Labour party.

 

[glasgowspur]

You literally only have to go back to the last time Labour were in power for examples.

Cash for honours?

How about Lord Drayson? If you want an apt parallel, he was given govt contracts for vaccines in return for huge donations to the Labour party.

You don't even have to go back at all, look the SNP, 6 months ago hailed as a progressive, socially forward looking party, an open and transparent party with nothing to hide, a party elected to rid Scotland of National tory and local labour sleaze, nepotism and corruption.
How's that going.
Of course anyone willing to look beyond the headlines, ask some pertinent questions and not be fooled by "progressive" rhetoric could see they were no different to any of the rest, because ultimately thay are ALL THE SAME.
Too many are to blinded by party loyalty to do anything but vote for the same crap time after time.
Your vote is loaned, it should never ever be given as a matter of course, there's absolutely no accountability there and that's why they get away with what they get away with.

 

[monkeybarry]

The system works on market forces, no more and no less. You've failed to take into account the effect of market forces on labour in your premise.

If employers don't offer sufficient pay and conditions then they won't have enough employees to run their business.

The system only works when everyone gets what they're due. You're falling into the trap of confusing what people want with what they deserve or have earned.

Oh wow. That is shockingly naive.

And if you re-read my post you'll understand that ALL of your points are inherent within it.

If shareholder profits are increasing whilst living standards are falling, how can you describe that as workers getting what they have earned?
Again, that is the crux of where are at - significant disparity caused by neo liberalist policy.
Shareholder reward relative to the investment risk is acceptable - but we're way passed that.

You've described the conditions in a healthy competitive market. We are not there - we are closer to employees being price takers and employers being price makers, rather than equity of both being price takers. People need to eat and pay bills - squeezing living standards combined with record profits has created the position of dissatisfaction where it's harder to move employer, and COVID has exposed the possibility of difference that equals "why should we move employer? Let's make this employment work for US.". Responsible capitalism will respond if it's smart.